Analyses of God beliefs, atheism, religion, faith, miracles, evidence for religious claims, evil and God, arguments for and against God, atheism, agnosticism, the role of religion in society, and related issues.

It’s frequently charged to the atheist, “you can’t prove a negative,” as if to suggest that under no circumstances is it reasonable to think that something doesn’t exist.But clearly there are a lot of things that you reasonably disbelieve in.And we can say a several things about their similarities and form a principle.

In First Philosophy (1966), Michael Scriven introduced the idea, and then Michael Martin expanded on it in Atheism:A Philosophical Justification.Here’s the idea behind their Santa principle.

In general, you can’t be justified in thinking that some X doesn’t exist unless you have looked.If you haven’t considered the available evidence and reflected on the sources or areas where evidence for the thing’s existence would occur if it was real, then it would be premature to conclude that there isn’t one.

Of course, once you have looked in all the likely places, or explored the relevant concepts, principles, and ideas, if you find evidence in favor of X’s existence, then you should accept that it is real, all other things being equal.So in order to conclude that there is no X the available evidence has to be inadequate in support of it.

But what if the X that we are seeking isn’t the sort of thing that would be manifest by evidence?If it is not the sort of thing that shows itself, then searching in all the right places and then not finding anything wouldn’t be sufficient to justify concluding that it isn’t real.

So the principle that Scriven and Martin give, with afew revisions of my own, is:

A person is justified in believing that X does not exist if all of these conditions are met:

the area where evidence would appear, if there were any, has been comprehensively examined, and

all of the available evidence that X exists is inadequate, and

X is the sort of entity that, if X exists, then it would show.

So for Santa, the Tooth Fairy, aliens, and lots of other cases of reasonable non-existence claims that we believe, these three conditions are met.If there was a Santa, then we’d expect to find some evidence of his existence at the North Pole, in the skies at Christmas, climbing down someone’s chimney, and so on.And we have looked in all the right places where he should be manifest if he is real.But the evidence is inadequate to support the conclusion that he is real.Furthermore, Santa is the sort of being that if he was real, then we’d be able to detect him in some relatively straightforward manner.

The lesson should be clear.Humans have devoted enormous amounts of energy to investigating the God question for millennia.There may be no other thing that we have all spent so much time and effort on trying to find with no results.But by widespread agreement, all of the evidence we have for God’s existence is inadequate to justify the conclusion.Even many prominent philosophical theologians concede the point.And presumably, God, who allegedly wants us to believe in him, and who is involved in the unfolding of events in the real world, would not wish us to labor away in the darkness, not knowing or being able to figure out the most important question ever facing humanity.One would think that he’d need to exert some effort to make his existence as undetectable as it is.It can’t be that he’s not able to make his existence more know to us than it is—if he wasn’t able he’d wouldn’t be worthy of the title.

So it’s reasonable to conclude that God doesn’t exist for the same general reasons that Santa does not. The burden of proof that this creates is that if you think that belief in God is reasonable, then you must either explain how God is importantly distinct from the cases that this principle was derived from, or you must give an argument for thinking that the Santa principle doesn’t apply because there is compelling evidence for God’s existence. Either way you’ve got a very hard task in front of you. It looks like in all the philosophically relevant ways, God is like the non-existing things on our list. Or if you choose to defend the existence of God on the basis of evidence, then you’ve got to produce this bit of reasoning or empirical information that makes belief so clearly agreeable. By widespread agreement, people, including believers, seem to think that belief in God isn’t or cannot be supported by evidence. Even if you think that the existence makes it reasonable to conclude that God exists, no reasonable person thinks that it is obvious or easy to see. So you’ll have the additional burden of explaining why it is that God is making it so hard to detect his existence. And that problem makes it difficult to reconcile the lack of clear evidence with God’s being good, all powerful, and all knowing.

I will comment more fully later; I have a lot on my plate right now. But would it be adequate to infer from the sources you referenced and the guidelines you laid out that, back then, Egyptians were in an adequate position to believe in their gods? It seems that justification to reject the existence of X comes iff one has met the guidelines. But they have not met those guidelines. In fact, they have looked, given their level of understanding on the subject, and believed in the Gods. It is only in retrospect that we look back going "Where's the evidence? We have looked and not seen anything, therefore we can justifiably reject your claims you silly Egyptians."

The problem that should be apparent is that the justification either way seems to be relative to the society and the individual, since one individual may have evidence enough for themselves, i.e., "I have looked and seen the Truth!" while everyone else would disagree. How do you reconcile this relativity?

Good points, Bryan. Yes, to some extent justification is a relative matter. Truth isn't--truth is truth. But someone could be in an epistemic situation where it is completely justified to believe something that is false. Consider the Matrix. Or Ptolemy--he was probably more justified in believing that the Sun orbits the Earth than I am in believing that the Earth orbits the Sun because he had done such a thorough and comprehensive analysis of every bit of information that was available. And two people, like two members of a jury, could be justified in believing opposite conclusions. But of course, the defendant is either innocent or guilty, not both.

As for the Egyptians, I think it is clear that none of them would have been in an epistemic situation where they would have met all four of the conditions in the principle. They were not in possession of the information that many of us are. Of course, there are some people today, home-schooled fundamentalists, for example, who are justified in believing some crazy shit--but mostly because they have had such filtered and tilted access to information.

But let's be clear about the implication of the principle: if the four conditions are met for someone, then they are justified in believing that no such X exists. It does not follow that there are no other ways to be justified in believing it. And it does not follow that no one else can be justified in believing that X exists.

Your suggesting what sounds like a logical error. If P then Q does not imply If ~P then ~Q. Consider: If you are in Sacramento, then you are in California. That's not equivalent to if you are not in Sacramento, then you are not in California. (The first is true, the second false.)

So then we do not know if it actually is the case, say, that Santa does not exist under these criteria. We are only justified in believing that Santa does not exist because we believe we have surveyed the relevant landscape, so to speak, enough to conclude that Santa is not on it?

Also, I do not mean to state a logical fallacy. It really depends on the relation between P and Q. I referenced it as an if, and only if. I was unclear as to what extent this relation was symmetric or not (i.e., biconditional). Thanks for clearing that up.

Let me ask you some more questions. If the guidelines are met, one is justified. If the guidelines are not met, one can still be justified, say, by another model of criteria, correct? If the guidelines are not met, one can clearly be unjustified. Now, can one meet the guidelines and still not be justified? In other words, are the guidelines always sufficient to claim justification, across all domains?

My point for bringing that up is that in a simplified logic (e.g., propositional/statement logic), there is no listing of domains or what is being referenced. In short, it inherently has a universal domain analyzing statements. Predicate logic obviously requires domain declaration. The way you have presented these guidelines fits more with the generalized approach with a universal domain. If that is the case, then meeting the guidelines implies justification (P implies Q) universally (given, that it is relative to the informer). Stated alternatively, one model of justification follows from a function (R) of the three criteria (a,b,c). Then any individual obtains the output on a universal input to R(a,b,c). If that is correct, do you understand?

My worry should be obvious that both the universal inputs is questionable (domains should always be considered), and the criteria themselves will admit of specific domains that may not completely mesh (i.e., not all inputs can fall under these guidelines, by design). If that is the case, then the universalized domain conflicts with the specificity in the criteria. An easy work around is to say those things outside of the specific domain will just not obtain an output (like a function outside of some domain simply equals zero, e.g.), but then we still need something to determine the placement of the inputs, i.e., does it fall in or out of the specific meaningful range? With mathematics it is inherent. We know the set from which the numbers belong and how they will behave on a given function. This is not mathematics. In that case, we need an alternative function to determine the inputs placement if there is a conflict; otherwise, if it is not universally applicable in a meaningful manner, then one may come to a false conclusion in which the answer should be "zero" or vice versa.

To simplify that, what is the meta-framework from which this model of justification operates in? I made a comparison to mathematics, which clearly operates in a mathematical framework that has many well-defined parameters and axioms, etc. which allow it all to make sense. If this model does not meaningfully obtain universal inputs, then what framework, what outside of the criteria, will allow us to use them effectively? What framework makes the function, i.e., R(a,b,c), robust?

First may we define our terms. The word Atheism comes literally from the Greek, negative alpha and theos [for God], therefore “negative God” or there is no God. It is not saying, “I do not think or believe there is a God”, rather it affirms the non existence of God. It affirms a negative in the absolute. Anyone who took philosophy 101 knows you cannot affirm a negative in the absolute. It is a logical contradiction. Therefore it is self defeating. It also breaks the rule of non contradiction by ascribing to itself a divine attribute while at the same time denying the existence of the Divine. Atheism not only denounces the existence of God, but by its own definition denounces the principle by which it criticizes the reality of God. To make an absolute statement in the negative is similar to saying that nowhere in the universe does there exist a flying spaghetti monster. For the atheist to make such a claim he must have unlimited knowledge of this universe. What the atheist is fundamentally saying is that he has infinite knowledge of this universe to affirm that there exist no being with infinite knowledge. It is self defeating. Atheism is a religion and its promoters are its missionaries. Such as Burton Russell who spoke clearly, continually, and with conviction about reality, humanity [what is wrong and what is needed for a better life], and death [where there is no ultimate hope]. Therefore it is a worldview. Since Atheism denies the existence of God it does embrace and defend as sacred any theory that attempts to disprove God. It holds such men as Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche, Charles Darwin and many others worthy of their attention and following. And the atrocities of the past two centuries prove that their ideas had consequences. Now if atheism is true then ultimately there is no moral law in this universe. As a personal philosophy of live it offers no ultimate hope and death is the end of personal existence. Since there is no reference point for the meaning of life there is a complete loss of meaning. And ultimately if the atheist is wrong he has made an unreasonable commitment, for when he dies and finds out that God does exists there is no chance for recovery. But with God you have these and more. Or are you truly an agnostic who with the evidence, philosophy, and data you have studied, has come to the conclusion that the existence of God cannot be proven with certainty. Agnostic comes from the Greek, alpha the negative and ‘gnosis’ to know, which means “doesn’t know”. That is easy to defend, all you has to prove is that you don’t know.In God’s perspective there are two types of people those who bend their knee to Him and say “Your will be done”, and those that refuse to bend their knee and say, “No, my will be done.” In the conclusion of things Jesus will honor your choice, either eternal existence with Him, or eternity without Him. Don’t make the mistake of experiencing a Godless eternity because you thought you were too good, for God’s forgiveness, atonement, redemption, and justification.

TWM: I'm surprised - perhaps unreasonably - to see an apparently rational person resort to Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is an attempt to apply the precautionary principle to life. Better to err on the side of caution. But given the wager's premise that we don't know whether god exists, it follows that we don't know which side the caution lies on.

We don't know which god to believe in. Perhaps you are believing in the wrong one! There are so many to choose from.

We don't know that *belief* is what this god actually values. Perhaps this god rewards people who don't believe without sufficient evidence. Or rewards actions. Or rewards people who have red hair.

Don’t make the mistake of experiencing a Godless eternity because you worshipped the wrong one, or didn't jump through the appropriate hoops.

Can you prove there are no fairies? (Let's say a fairy is a spiritual being that is normally invisible but has the capacity to make itself visible to certain people at certain times in the form of a tiny human lady with wings.)

What Pascal's Wager is saying is, that they believe their omniscient god is so stupid that he can be fooled by someone pretending to believe "just in case".

It also states that god would favor the pretender over someone who was genuinely moral but did not believe in the unproven existence of any supernatural existence. ''If I were that god, I'd be insulted over that.

I'd also be insulted that I had given my creations intelligence and reason and they chose to throw my gifts away. For some reason, none of this seems to bother theists.

My book is out:

Search This Blog

Atheism

Author:

Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Rochester. Teaching at CSUS since 1996. My main area of research and publication now is atheism and philosophy of religion. I am also interested in philosophy of mind, epistemology, and rational decision theory/critical thinking.

Quotes:

"Science. It works, bitches."

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

"Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever until the end of time. But he loves you! He loves you and he needs money!"George Carlin 1937 - 2008

Many Paths, No God.

I don't go to church, I AM a church, for fuck's sake. I'm MINISTRY. --Al Jourgensen

Every sect, as far as reason will help them, make use of it gladly; and where it fails them, they cry out, “It is a matter of faith, and above reason.”- John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

If life evolved, then there isn't anything left for God to do.

The universe is not fine-tuned for humanity. Humanity is fine-tuned to the universe. Victor Stenger

Skeptical theists choose to ride the trolley car of skepticism concerning the goods that God would know so as to undercut the evidential argument from evil. But once on that trolley car it may not be easy to prevent that skepticism from also undercutting any reasons they may suppose they have for thinking that God will provide them and the worshipful faithful with life everlasting in his presence. William Rowe

Unless you're one of those Easter-bunny vitalists who believes that personality results from some unquantifiable divine spark, there's really no alternative to the mechanistic view of human nature. Peter Watts

The essence of humanity's spiritual dilemma is that we evolved genetically to accept one truth and discovered another. E.O. Wilson

Creating humans who could understand the contrast between good and evil without subjecting them to eons of horrible suffering would be an utterly inconsequential matter for an omnipotent being. MM

The second commandment is "Thou shall not construct any graven images." Is this really the pinnacle of what we can achieve morally? The second most important moral principle for all the generations of humanity? It would be so easy to improve upon the 10 Commandments. How about "Try not to deep fry all of your food"? Sam Harris

Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody--not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms--had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would think--though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one--that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great

We believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion. And we know for a fact that the corollary holds true--that religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great

If atheism is a religion, then not playing chess is a hobby.

"Imagine a world in which generations of human beings come to believe that certain films were made by God or that specific software was coded by him. Imagine a future in which millions of our descendants murder each other over rival interpretations of Star Wars or Windows 98. Could anything--anything--be more ridiculous? And yet, this would be no more ridiculous than the world we are living in." Sam Harris, The End of Faith, 36.

"Only a tiny fraction of corpsesfossilize, and we are lucky to have as many intermediate fossils as we do. We could easily have had no fossils at all, and still the evidence for evolution from other sources, such as molecular genetics and geographical distribution, would be overwhelmingly strong. On the other hand, evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water." Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 127.

One cannot take, "believing in X gives me hope, makes me moral, or gives me comfort," to be a reason for believing X. It might make me moral if I believe that I will be shot the moment I do something immoral, but that doesn't make it possible for me to believe it, or to take its effects on me as reasons for thinking it is true. Matt McCormick

Add this blog to your Google Page

Top Ten Myths about Belief in God

1. Myth: Without God, life has no meaning.

There are 1.2 billion Chinese who have no predominant religion, and 1 billion people in India who are predominantly Hindu. And 65% of Japan's 127 million people claim to be non-believers. It is laughable to suggest that none of these billions of people are leading meaningful lives.

2. Myth: Prayer works.

Numerous studies have now shown that remote, blind, inter-cessionary prayer has no effect whatsoever of the health or well-being of subject's health, psychological states, or longevity. Furthermore, we have no evidence to support the view that people who wish fervently in their heads for things that they want get those things at any higher rate than people who do not.

3. Myth: Atheists are less decent, less moral, and overall worse people than believers.

There are hundreds of millions of non-believers on the planet living normal, decent, moral lives. They love their children, care about others, obey laws, and try to keep from doing harm to others just like everyone else. In fact, in predominately non-believing countries such as in northern Europe, measures of societal health such as life expectancy at birth, adult literacy, per capita income, education, homicide, suicide, gender equality, and political coercion are better than they are in believing societies.

4. Myth: Belief in God is compatible with the descriptions, explanations and products of science.

In the past, every supernatural or paranormal explanation of phenomena that humans believed turned out to be mistaken; science has always found a physical explanation that revealed that the supernatural view was a myth. Modern organisms evolved from lower life forms, they weren't created 6,000 years ago in the finished state. Fever is not caused by demon possession. Bad weather is not the wrath of angry gods. Miracle claims have turned out to be mistakes, frauds, or deceptions. So we have every reason to conclude that science will continue to undermine the superstitious worldview of religion.

5. Myth: We have immortal souls that survive the death of the body.

We have mountains of evidence that makes it clear that our consciousness, our beliefs, our desires, our thoughts all depend upon the proper functioning of our brains our nervous systems to exist. So when the brain dies, all of these things that we identify with the soul also cease to exist. Despite the fact that billions of people have lived and died on this planet, we do not have a single credible case of someone's soul, or consciousness, or personality continuing to exist despite the demise of their bodies. Allegations of spirit chandlers, psychics, ghost stories, and communications with the dead have all turned out to be frauds, deceptions, mistakes, and lies.

6. Myth: If there is no God, everything is permitted. Only belief in God makes people moral.

Consider the billions of people in China, India, and Japan above. If this claim was true, none of them would be decent moral people. So Ghandi, the Buddha, and Confucius, to name only a few were not moral people on this view, not to mention these other famous atheists: Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Aldous Huxley, Charles Darwin, Benjamin Franklin, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, Elizabeth Cady-Stanton, John Stuart Mill, Galileo, George Bernard Shaw, Gloria Steinam, James Madison, John Adams, and so on.

7. Myth: Believing in God is never a root cause of significant evil.

The counter examples of cases where it was someone's belief in God that was the direct justification for their perpetrated horrendous evils on humankind are too numerous to mention.

8. Myth: The existence of God would explain the origins of the universe and humanity.

All of the questions that allegedly plague non-God attempts to explain our origins--why are we here, where are we going, what is the point of it all, why is the universe here--still apply to the faux explanation of God. The suggestion that God created everything does not make it any clearer to us where it all came from, how he created it, why he created it, where it isall going. In fact, it raises even more difficult mysteries: how did God, operating outside the confines of space, time, and natural law "create" or "build" a universe that has physical laws? We have no precedent and maybe no hope of answering or understanding such a possibility. What does it mean to say that some disembodied, spiritual being who knows everything and has all power, "loves" us, or has thoughts, or goals, or plans? How could such a being have any sort of personal relationship with beings like us?

9. Myth: Even if it isn't true, there's no harm in my believing in God anyway.

People's religious views inform their voting, how they raise their children, what they think is moral and immoral, what laws and legislation they pass, who they are friends and enemies with, what companies they invest in, where they donate to charities, who they approve and disapprove of, who they are willing to kill or tolerate, what crimes they are willing to commit, and which wars they are willing to fight. How could any reasonable person think that religious beliefs are insignificant.

10: Myth: There is a God.

Common Criticisms of Atheism (and Why They’re Mistaken)

1. You can’t prove atheism.You can never prove a negative, so atheism requires as much faith as religion.

Atheists are frequently accosted with this accusation, suggesting that in order for non-belief to be reasonable, it must be founded on deductively certain grounds. Many atheists within the deductive atheology tradition have presented just those sorts of arguments, but those arguments are often ignored. But more importantly, the critic has invoked a standard of justification that almost none of our beliefs meet. If we demand that beliefs are not justified unless we have deductive proof, then all of us will have to throw out the vast majority of things we currently believe—oxygen exists, the Earth orbits the Sun, viruses cause disease, the 2008 summer Olympics were in China, and so on. The believer has invoked one set of abnormally stringent standards for the atheist while helping himself to countless beliefs of his own that cannot satisfy those standards. Deductive certainty is not required to draw a reasonable conclusion that a claim is true.

As for requiring faith, is the objection that no matter what, all positions require faith?Would that imply that one is free to just adopt any view they like?Religiousness and non-belief are on the same footing?(they aren’t).If so, then the believer can hardly criticize the non-believer for not believing. Is the objection that one should never believe anything on the basis of faith?Faith is a bad thing?That would be a surprising position for the believer to take, and, ironically, the atheist is in complete agreement.

2. The evidence shows that we should believe.

If in fact there is sufficient evidence to indicate that God exists, then a reasonable person should believe it. Surprisingly, very few people pursue this line as a criticism of atheism. But recently, modern versions of the design and cosmological arguments have been presented by believers that require serious consideration. Many atheists cite a range of reasons why they do not believe that these arguments are successful. If an atheist has reflected carefully on the best evidence presented for God’s existence and finds that evidence insufficient, then it’s implausible to fault them for irrationality, epistemic irresponsibility, or for being obviously mistaken.Given that atheists are so widely criticized, and that religious belief is so common and encouraged uncritically, the chances are good that any given atheist has reflected more carefully about the evidence.

3. You should have faith.

Appeals to faith also should not be construed as having prescriptive force the way appeals to evidence or arguments do. The general view is that when a person grasps that an argument is sound, that imposes an epistemic obligation of sorts on her to accept the conclusion. One person’s faith that God exists does not have this sort of inter-subjective implication. Failing to believe what is clearly supported by the evidence is ordinarily irrational. Failure to have faith that some claim is true is not similarly culpable. At the very least, having faith, where that means believing despite a lack of evidence or despite contrary evidence is highly suspect. Having faith is the questionable practice, not failing to have it.

4. Atheism is bleak, nihilistic, amoral, dehumanizing, or depressing.

These accusations have been dealt with countless times. But let’s suppose that they are correct. Would they be reasons to reject the truth of atheism? They might be unpleasant affects, but having negative emotions about a claim doesn’t provide us with any evidence that it is false. Imagine upon hearing news about the Americans dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki someone steadfastly refused to believe it because it was bleak, nihilistic, amoral, dehumanizing, or depressing. Suppose we refused to believe that there is an AIDS epidemic that is killing hundreds of thousands of people in Africa on the same grounds.

5.Atheism is bad for you.Some studies in recent years have suggested that people who regularly attend church, pray, and participate in religious activities are happier, live longer, have better health, and less depression.

First, these results and the methodologies that produced them have been thoroughly criticized by experts in the field.Second, it would be foolish to conclude that even if these claims about quality of life were true, that somehow shows that there is theism is correct and atheism is mistaken.What would follow, perhaps, is that participating in social events like those in religious practices are good for you, nothing more.There are a number of obvious natural explanations.Third, it is difficult to know the direction of the causal arrow in these cases.Does being religious result in these positive effects, or are people who are happier, healthier, and not depressed more inclined to participate in religions for some other reasons?Fourth, in a number of studies atheistic societies like those in northern Europe scored higher on a wide range of society health measures than religious societies.

Given that atheists make up a tiny proportion of the world’s population, and that religious governments and ideals have held sway globally for thousands of years, believers will certainly lose in a contest over “who has done more harm,” or “which ideology has caused more human suffering.”It has not been atheism because atheists have been widely persecuted, tortured, and killed for centuries nearly to the point of extinction.

Sam Harris has argued that the problem with these regimes has been that they became too much like religions.“Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag, and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.”

7.Atheists are harsh, intolerant, and hateful of religion.

Sam Harris has advocated something he calls “conversational intolerance.”For too long, a confusion about religious tolerance has led people to look the other way and say nothing while people with dangerous religious agendas have undermined science, the public good, and the progress of the human race.There is no doubt that people are entitled to read what they choose, write and speak freely, and pursue the religions of their choice.But that entitlement does not guarantee that the rest of us must remain silent or not verbally criticize or object to their ideas and their practices, especially when they affect all of us.Religious beliefs have a direct affect on who a person votes for, what wars they fight, who they elect to the school board, what laws they pass, who they drop bombs on, what research they fund (and don’t), which social programs they fund (and don’t), and a long list of other vital, public matters.Atheists are under no obligation to remain silent about those beliefs and practices that urgently need to be brought into the light and reasonably evaluated.

Real respect for humanity will not be found by indulging your neighbor’s foolishness, or overlooking dangerous mistakes.Real respect is found in disagreement.The most important thing we can do for each other is disagree vigorously and thoughtfully so that we can all get closer to the truth.

8.Science is as much a religious ideology as religion is.

At their cores, religions and science have a profound difference.The essence of religion is sustaining belief in the face of doubts, obeying authority, and conforming to a fixed set of doctrines.By contrast, the most important discovery that humans have ever made is the scientific method.The essence of that method is diametrically opposed to religious ideals:actively seek out disconfirming evidence.The cardinal virtues of the scientific approach are to doubt, analyze, critique, be skeptical, and always be prepared to draw a different conclusion if the evidence demands it.